Appeal No. 98-2325
Application No. 08/546,116
exhaust air muffler 18 with a foam liner as taught by Sakaki
for the reasons stated supra.
With regard to the limitation pertaining to the flush
relationship of the liner’s inner surface to the inner
surfaces of the muffler’s inlet and outlet, Sakaki expressly
recognizes the noise-reducing advantage of locating the
liner’s inner surface (d1) such that it is aligned or “flush”
(to use appellants’ language) with the inner surfaces (d2) of
the muffler’s inlet and outlet ports. It therefore would have
been obvious to provide such a flush relation in the muffler
to be utilized in place of Belley’s exhaust air muffler 18.
With regard to the claim limitation pertaining to the
“minimum length” of the liner, it would have been expected and
therefore obvious to provide the liner (which is the noise-
reducing component in the muffler) with a length that is at
least long enough to achieve a substantial noise reduction
inasmuch as the fundamental purpose of such a muffler is to
reduce the noise as much as practically possible. Appellants’
remarks (see page 5 of the brief) about the failure of a
second Sakaki publication (identified as application No. 52-
31831 on page 4 of the brief) to suggest the claimed liner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007